Alexey Kovyazin wrote:
> In 1920 it looks pretty bad, with a lot of unreasonable blank spaces:
> http://ge.tt/8nhaCq9?c
>
> Creating scaled design which will look great from 1024 to 1920 is
> non-trivial work.
Agreeded ... it's taken weeks to get the framework stable across most browsers
and there are still some holes, but now at least I CAN work on upgrading the
content. ( The original welcome page has moved inside ;) )
That is until they move the pigging goalposts again!
> I think that mobile version (phones) should be completeley different,
> but pads already have 1024 or 1280 pixels.
I think as long as the normal pages play nicely with smartphones that is all
that is needed for now. As long as I can grab a file while out on site with no
land based internet access ... yes it does happen more often than one might
think ... but I can now at least hook up the laptop to the phone! I can't even
access the management console on 1&1 so HAD to get that option working.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

11.11.2011 12:51, Alexey Kovyazin wrote:
>
> Looking at the new site, I often have impression what current width
> (1024 pixels) is too small for modern screens (which are at least 1368
> in netbooks and 1920 for desktop systems).
Impressions are good, but what exactly is it going to fix / improve?
With the fixed sidebars it would allow either bigger fonts or the
decreased height (less scrolling) of the contents area. The fonts are
already big enough, IMHO. So let's count how many pages overflow two or
three screens in height. And then let's estimate wouldn't it be easier /
cheaper to split them into two pages instead?
Speaking personally, I'd rather keep the current width.
Dmitry

LC> Norman Dunbar wrote:
LC> I must say that I'm in agreement on that! Yes we need to cater for viewing on
LC> lower resolution devices, such as the range of smartphone and pads being used
LC> nowadays (and serving an alternative theme might help there), ...
My opinion is that mobile sites should be completely independent
pages, ie: m.firebirdsql.org
BTW, it just make sense to spend resources with mobile site if there
is demand for it. Alexey, based on GA stats, what is the percent of
visitors using mobile devices?
[]s
Carlos H. Cantu
http://www.FireBase.com.br - http://www.firebirdnews.orghttp://www.warmboot.com.br - blog.firebase.com.br

At 11:02 PM 11/11/2011, Alexey Kovyazin wrote:
>I see that 17% of visitors use eqipment with 1024 pixels, other 80% has larger screens.
>
>1024x768 0.178249372
>1280x1024 0.14178184
>1366x768 0.13923542
>1280x800 0.098544102
>1920x1080 0.076243073
>1440x900 0.072257576
>1680x1050 0.065856485
>1600x900 0.037672993
>1920x1200 0.025964135
>1360x768 0.021913225
>
>
>Having in mind that new site will be (optimistically) in the middle of 2012, I suppose %% of users with 1024 pixels will be less than 10%.
Don't count on that. At the rate sales of tablets are going, the numbers are more likely to trend the other way. Also, most people I've had contact with who have laptops with larger screens want to get rid of them because they are so heavy to haul around.
And please don't discount us people with imperfect eyesight.
It aint broke, so there's nothing to fix, imho.
Helen

>> Looking at the new site, I often have impression what current width
>> (1024 pixels) is too small for modern screens (which are at least 1368
>> in netbooks and 1920 for desktop systems).
> While this may be true, bear in mind that not everyone has 'modern'
> equipment. I'm working on a laptop that has a maximum resolution of
> 1,024 by 768.
Instead of 1 wide screen, I have to monitors, 1280 px each.
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Download Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL
Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase, NexusDB and Firebird!

Lester,
>Should we move to 1280px in the next version of the site?
>> I would say no. And ask the question, why are we using pixels instead of
>> percentages?
> I must say that I'm in agreement on that! Yes we need to cater for viewing on
> lower resolution devices, such as the range of smartphone and pads being used
> nowadays (and serving an alternative theme might help there), but leaving 50% of
> the screen blank on the current range of desktop machines is a right pain. It
> took me a while to get http://medw.co.uk working reasonably well and it still
> needs a bit more fine tuning, but I think it scales quite well from 1024 to 1920
> and on most browsers it will handle 800 even ...
In 1920 it looks pretty bad, with a lot of unreasonable blank spaces:
http://ge.tt/8nhaCq9?c
Creating scaled design which will look great from 1024 to 1920 is
non-trivial work.
I think that mobile version (phones) should be completeley different,
but pads already have 1024 or 1280 pixels.
Regards,
Alexey Kovyazin

Norman Dunbar wrote:
>> Should we move to 1280px in the next version of the site?
> I would say no. And ask the question, why are we using pixels instead of
> percentages?
I must say that I'm in agreement on that! Yes we need to cater for viewing on
lower resolution devices, such as the range of smartphone and pads being used
nowadays (and serving an alternative theme might help there), but leaving 50% of
the screen blank on the current range of desktop machines is a right pain. It
took me a while to get http://medw.co.uk working reasonably well and it still
needs a bit more fine tuning, but I think it scales quite well from 1024 to 1920
and on most browsers it will handle 800 even ...
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

Hello Norman,
>> Looking at the new site, I often have impression what current width
>> (1024 pixels) is too small for modern screens (which are at least 1368
>> in netbooks and 1920 for desktop systems).
> While this may be true, bear in mind that not everyone has 'modern'
> equipment. I'm working on a laptop that has a maximum resolution of
> 1,024 by 768.
I see that 17% of visitors use eqipment with 1024 pixels, other 80% has
larger screens.
1024x768 0.178249372
1280x1024 0.14178184
1366x768 0.13923542
1280x800 0.098544102
1920x1080 0.076243073
1440x900 0.072257576
1680x1050 0.065856485
1600x900 0.037672993
1920x1200 0.025964135
1360x768 0.021913225
Having in mind that new site will be (optimistically) in the middle of
2012, I suppose %% of users with 1024 pixels will be less than 10%.
>
>> Should we move to 1280px in the next version of the site?
> I would say no. And ask the question, why are we using pixels instead of
> percentages?
Do you mean scaled design? It's very hard to implement reasonable scaled
design and, more important, standard in our industry (databases and dev
tools) is to have fixed width sites.
Personally I like scaled designs - here is my favorite sciteific site,
for example http://elementy.ru/, but we are limited in resources to
create such design.
>
>> It will give ability to put 1:1 screenshots, may be we can switch to
>> higher types sizes.
> Why nor do what Wordpress does, display the image as a thumbnail (of
> varying sizes) and click to display full size.
Sure, it can be done.
>
>> I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts.
> Hopefully, the above is helpful?
Yes, a bit :)
Regards,
Alexey Kovyazin

Morning Alexey,
> Looking at the new site, I often have impression what current width
> (1024 pixels) is too small for modern screens (which are at least 1368
> in netbooks and 1920 for desktop systems).
While this may be true, bear in mind that not everyone has 'modern'
equipment. I'm working on a laptop that has a maximum resolution of
1,024 by 768.
> Should we move to 1280px in the next version of the site?
I would say no. And ask the question, why are we using pixels instead of
percentages?
> It will give ability to put 1:1 screenshots, may be we can switch to
> higher types sizes.
Why nor do what Wordpress does, display the image as a thumbnail (of
varying sizes) and click to display full size.
> I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts.
Hopefully, the above is helpful?
Cheers,
Norm.
--
Norman Dunbar
Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd
Registered address:
Thorpe House
61 Richardshaw Lane
Pudsey
West Yorkshire
United Kingdom
LS28 7EL
Company Number: 05132767

Hello All,
Looking at the new site, I often have impression what current width
(1024 pixels) is too small for modern screens (which are at least 1368
in netbooks and 1920 for desktop systems).
Should we move to 1280px in the next version of the site?
It will give ability to put 1:1 screenshots, may be we can switch to
higher types sizes.
I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts.
Regards,
Alexey Kovyazin